# Hunger Games Discussion



## golden999 (Apr 11, 2012)

The books, the movie, and anything about Panem.


----------



## Dar (Apr 11, 2012)

Well, I just got out of a movie theater after watching Hunger Games for two hours, and I can tell you that the book is much better. However, this doesn't mean that the movie wasn't great, for those who haven't seen it.


----------



## Coroxn (Apr 12, 2012)

I was hoping to go to the movie with my friend tomorrow (actually today now) but his jerkass Dad is making him cut up dead things so he can't. I mean, after all of this finding the perfect solution to both our problems, it's meaningless.

But anyway,

Did anyone else find it hilarious that (Spoilers for the entire series) Katniss was in a huge twist over whether she liked Peeta or Gale, and then Gale says "screw this", heads off to district 3 and she settles with Peeta.

No? Just me?

I don't think I particularly liked the latter books at all. I would have much preferred if Katniss had killed Peeta to go home. I mean, not that the last two books were bad, but the story they showed was never preferable to the one that preceded it, and I can't help but think the series suffered for its sequels.


----------



## Tailsy (Apr 12, 2012)

I actually think the film is better than the books, save the cutting of some interesting sub-plots (which is obviously due to time constraints which is fair enough). Collins' writing style isn't really that amazing and the film pretty much does away with that save for the occasionally clunky-slash-expository dialogue! The cinematics are also really, really cool.

Although I guess the whole firesuit thing could have looked a little cooler but whatever I ain't complainin'.


----------



## Superbird (Apr 12, 2012)

The film was quite good, but in my opinion it just doesn't hold up to the book. In addition to skipping more than a quarter (or so it felt like) of the book's story, there were also more than 30 (I counted) technical inaccuracies in the stuff they did include; there was no Haymitch falling off the stage at the beginning, Effie had BLONDE hair instead of pink, and a lot more of that stuff. Especially the mutts at the end -- the fact that in the book they had the eyes and hair color of the dead tributes was incredibly symbolic, possibly the most symbolic moment in the book, but that disappears in the movie. 

That said, the movie is still quite good! I liked the head gamemaker's beard for starters, and Caesar Flickerman was absolutely amazing. I also really liked the behind-the-scenes stuff, like how they were basically terraforming as the games went on. And I just loved the scene where the head gamemaker meets his end. And I agree with Tailsy; the film is a bit less awkward than Suzanne Collins' writing style; in that Katniss is often happy and then just a few paragraphs later she's angry, like it depends on the mood of the author instead of the mood of the character. The movie made that a lot more fluent.

tl;dr I liked it.


----------



## shy ♡ (Apr 12, 2012)

Collins' writing style isn't amazing, but it painted the books so visually that I just really didn't enjoy the movie at all. They cut out so many things that I found to be integral to the story, and I couldn't get passed how so many characters were miscast, and... it just didn't have anything for me really? The bulk of what I enjoyed in the books was the characters. I couldn't enjoy that in the movie because they were cast wrong. So, eh. :\

I agree the latter books fade in quality quite a bit. Although the first book isn't great in quality to begin with, honestly - as I said the main draw to the books is the characters. Story-wise it isn't hugely original. But the second and third books get kind of drawn out and derivative. I also _never_ enjoyed the mutts at all; they seem to stretch too far into fantasy, way more than the rest of the book, and quite suddenly without any precedence? Like, suddenly-fantasy. The rest of the books are sci-fi/realism. It just weirds me out and I don't see why they couldn't be like, real animals? Eh...? Idk. I think there's no reason to add fakethings when realthings work just as well, when the fakeness doesn't add anything to the story. And the mutts really didn't add anything at all.

_All of that said_ I do really enjoy the books. u_u If you could combine the characters of THG and the worldbuilding of HP it would be amazing. I didn't enjoy the movie though.


----------



## blazheirio889 (Apr 12, 2012)

I did rather like the books. Collins' writing style is okay, but not amazing or anything. The first book was good, the second book was okay (but because of character stuff it kindasorta ties with the first in my mind), and Mockingjay was just... too focused on the plot, not on the characters, the ending was rushed... blah. But like Pathos I liked the books more for the characters than the plot. I really enjoyed the dynamics between Katniss, Peeta, and Gale, but mostly Katniss and Peeta since they're both quite messed up by the end of the trilogy. :D 

The movie was okay, in that it managed to capture the main points of the book and present them in a coherent manner (which would be difficult, I'd imagine, since the book's told from Katniss' perspective while the movie is third-person). A huge huge huge thing they missed, though, was the nature of Katniss' and Peeta's relationship. In the movie, the cave scenes are rushed and they actually do seem to love each other, while in the book Katniss is conflicted and is only playing her part in the "romance" to get sponsors. 

And @Coroxn: I actually found the resolution of the love triangle to be really tragic! Gale and Katniss can't stand to be around each other anymore, since it may well have been Gale's bomb which killed Prim. He feels too guilty about that, and Katniss can't disconnect Gale and Prim's death in her mind, and consequently will probably never forgive him. In the end, they lose their friendship as well. Meanwhile, Katniss clings to Peeta because he's the only one who can understand what she went through. They're brought together by their mental scarring from the Games.

I could ramble on so much more because messed-up characters intrigue me :D


----------



## see ya (Apr 12, 2012)

Superbird said:


> Especially the mutts at the end -- the fact that in the book they had the eyes and hair color of the dead tributes was incredibly symbolic, possibly the most symbolic moment in the book, but that disappears in the movie.


I was actually quite okay with this detail being left out. Not because it wasn't amazing in the book, but because it would have lost a lot of its impact in film version. In the book we're told very clearly the physical description of the plot-important tributes, but in the movie there just isn't enough room in the pacing to allow for that kind of detail. Unless we'd been given long, loving looks at all the tributes' eyes and hair, it wouldn't have meant much. Exposition during the scene itself would have broken up the pace of the very action-filled sequence.

Plus, it probably wouldn't have looked as good as anyone would hope. When dealing with realistic things with that level of detail, there's a fine line between creepy and silly. For that, I think it would be better to leave such an image in the mind of the viewer than to outright show them.

Anyway, I thought the movie was fantastic. Best movie-to-book adaptation I've ever seen. The very few differences from the book were things that didn't really matter in the first place like Katniss buying the mockingjay pin herself instead of getting it from her friend.

Only complaint is too much shaky-cam.


----------



## Dannichu (Apr 12, 2012)

Sunflower said:


> Only complaint is too much shaky-cam.


I've only seen the film (I have plans to read the book(s) while lying in the sun in my hammock over the summer), but I'd agree _completely_ with this. The handheld camera bits annoyed me an awful lot. I really enjoyed the film itself, but didn't like a lot of the direction.


----------



## Abwayax (Apr 13, 2012)

The movie didn't really disappoint, but it didn't really impress either. It was what I had expected. The book was, of course, better, in my humble opinion.

(Probably don't have to but better to be safe than sorry) 



Spoiler



the main issue, and one that the movie probably can't help, is that the book is told from Katniss' point of view and that the movie by its nature is third-person. This means that the book could focus more on the characters but the movie had to make up for that by showing "extras" like the gamemaker scenes. IMHO the series really is about the character of Katniss as much as, or perhaps moreso than the hunger games or even Panem at all. The movie gives us a spectators' view, as if we were in the Capitol cheering on our favorite tributes, which actually blunts the emotional impact significantly.

The book was better able to develop characters and relationships, such as the relationship between Katniss and Rue, which was far deeper in the book than in the movie. The movie basically has them team up for a bit and then Rue dies, while the book is better able to develop their connection (including the ever important fact that Rue reminds Katniss of her sister, which is part of her motivation to help her) and includes scenes such as them telling each other about life in their districts, which serves both to allow us to relate to them (and to demonstrate how the Capitol keeps its citizens apart; they censor this scene from their own showing of the games, because they don't like people learning about other districts)

People often dismiss the mutts as being stupid but I think they were actually pretty interesting. Although not 100% _needed_, the mutts were yet another way of the Capitol demonstrating its complete ownership of the lives of the districts' people - that even after death, the Capitol still owns them and can do with them whatever they want. It's not a real great loss that this was left out of the movie, though, because as others have pointed out it would have been terribly difficult to accomplish. The replacement (regular big dog things?) isn't nearly as horrible, though. Might as well have gone the Watchmen route and chosen a different final threat altogether.

I do feel like the confrontation with Cato in the finale was more lackluster in the film than the book, too. This is probably, again, due to the fact that the book is a first-person experience of a hunger games tribute in her fight to the death whereas the film is a Capitol spectator's experience of those games. Cato _seems_ much more menacing in the book _because_, reading the book, we are in the arena with Katniss and experience her fear of Cato as well. In the movie, sure, we see Cato being this thuggish bully who occasionally does snap another kid's neck, but his impact is lessened in the movie.

Showing the gamemaker's death was a nice "extra" but very unnecessary. The book leaves the question of his fate to the sequel, whereas the movie just spills it outright. It is never specified just what happened to him, but the books just hint that President Snow "took care of him." The lack of detail surrounding the game maker's death in the book makes President Snow seem more menacing and powerful, giving him the appearance of just being able to make people disappear at will.



If I had to rate it on a scale of 1 to 8 I'd say 6.5.

e:



blazheirio889 said:


> A huge huge huge thing they missed, though, was the nature of Katniss' and Peeta's relationship. In the movie, the cave scenes are rushed and they actually do seem to love each other, while in the book Katniss is conflicted and is only playing her part in the "romance" to get sponsors.


I thought it was blatantly obvious in the movie that Haymitch was egging her on to act romancey for the sponsors (e.g. the "You call that a kiss?" note from one of the gifts)... although, again, because the movie can't focus too much on her emotions we can't really tell one way or the other.


----------



## shy ♡ (Apr 13, 2012)

Sunflower said:


> Anyway, I thought the movie was fantastic. Best movie-to-book adaptation I've ever seen.


... _really_? How many movies have you seen? Did you ever see Bambi or The Fox and the Hound? Or, idk, Fight Club or The Wizard of Oz or American Psycho or The Silence of the Lambs or Jurassic Park or The Godfather or Schindler's List or, okay, I'll stop but, _really_?



Adrian Malacoda said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> People often dismiss the mutts as being stupid but I think they were actually pretty interesting. Although not 100% _needed_, the mutts were yet another way of the Capitol demonstrating its complete ownership of the lives of the districts' people - that even after death, the Capitol still owns them and can do with them whatever they want. It's not a real great loss that this was left out of the movie, though, because as others have pointed out it would have been terribly difficult to accomplish. The replacement (regular big dog things?) isn't nearly as horrible, though. Might as well have gone the Watchmen route and chosen a different final threat altogether.


Yeah idk the mutts just seemed stupid to me. u_u Also part of why I never cared much for the mockingjays themselves. I prefer the regular-dogs in the movie, plus that they were just spontaneous creations. I'd go for a different final threat altogether, though.



> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Idk I didn't find Cato scary in either version honestly but I don't usually find things scary in media so I'm not a good judge. But I preferred Cato in the movie version because he had a _motive_ other than just 'lol I am evil I kill everyone'; he spoke and had feelings and things? Book-Cato was just _boring_ and they sort of had to flesh him out for the movie because no one can really act such a boring character. He's actually sort of interesting in the movie!

Also they sort of combined the gamemakers in the movie. Katniss was supposed to shoot at the gamemaker from the second/third book, who replaces the gamemaker from the first. But they combined them?



> I thought it was blatantly obvious in the movie that Haymitch was egging her on to act romancey for the sponsors (e.g. the "You call that a kiss?" note from one of the gifts)... although, again, because the movie can't focus too much on her emotions we can't really tell one way or the other.


Kind of hard to say while _knowing_ it was all fake because I read the book first, but it could have been more obvious? I suppose they'll go into it more in the second movie where Katniss is all 'no I don't love you it was just a game' and such.


----------



## Tigerclaw (Apr 13, 2012)

The first book was the most emotionally moving, imo. I liked Catching Fire the best, though. Mockingjay was alright, but it wasn't as gripping as the other two. Also, I didn't like the series' ending. It felt rushed and wasn't interesting to me. I also don't understand why Prim died. Was there even a reason for the bombing at all, or was it just because the author wanted something emotional to happen or something of the sort?
I really enjoyed the movie, but the book was much better. I think the movie skipped too much, and the toned-down violence to keep it PG-13 was not as emotional as the book. The actors did a great job, though.


----------



## surskitty (Apr 13, 2012)

Sunflower said:


> Only complaint is too much shaky-cam.


I haven't seen the movie, but shit, shaky-cam?  I absolutely hate shaky-cam.  How much of the movie is shaky-cam?


----------



## see ya (Apr 13, 2012)

Pathos said:


> ... _really_? How many movies have you seen? Did you ever see Bambi or The Fox and the Hound? Or, idk, Fight Club or The Wizard of Oz or American Psycho or The Silence of the Lambs or Jurassic Park or The Godfather or Schindler's List or, okay, I'll stop but, _really_?


The keyword here is that I've _seen,_ not that it's the best ever. I haven't seen any of those other movies. Except for, like, Wizard of Oz because everyone's seen that movie. I'd probably find those movies better if I'd seen them, but I haven't.

Yeah, I don't go to see movies a lot, so I'm not the best person to speak on the subject :B



Viki said:


> I haven't seen the movie, but shit, shaky-cam?  I absolutely hate shaky-cam.  How much of the movie is shaky-cam?


uuuh... pretty much all of it except for the bits in the Capitol.


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate (Apr 13, 2012)

Viki said:


> I haven't seen the movie, but shit, shaky-cam?  I absolutely hate shaky-cam.  How much of the movie is shaky-cam?


There's a ton but it's entirely concentrated on the violent bits. It's presumably to net that PG-13 rating, so. The rest is fine.


----------



## Phantom (Apr 13, 2012)

I think the movie did justice. 

For a movie.

Look at the A Song of Ice and Fire series. Game of Thrones has been AMAZING. It follows the book perfectly because _it has time to do that_. If Game of Thrones had been a movie it would have never have compared to what it's been on HBO.

I think The Hunger Games would have been better as a TV show, rather than movies. It would allow more in depth on characters, and more time on certain chapters and events that I believe should have been given more time in the movie; like Katniss' history and on District 12. 

Besides, it's a book on a TV show!


----------



## Coroxn (Apr 13, 2012)

Phantom said:


> I think The Hunger Games would have been better as a TV show, rather than movies. It would allow more in depth on characters, and more time on certain chapters and events that I believe should have been given more time in the movie; like Katniss' history and on District 12.
> 
> Besides, it's a book on a TV show!


This makes much more logical sense. I mean...why isn't this a thing? Does it have any reason not to be?

To HBO!


----------



## Phantom (Apr 13, 2012)

Coroxn said:


> This makes much more logical sense. I mean...why isn't this a thing? Does it have any reason not to be?
> 
> To HBO!


With the success that Game of Thrones (10 total, with 3 Emmys and 1 Golden Globe) and The Walking Dead (shit ton of nominations) have had from books to television I have hopes that more good books will be put forth for tv, rather than movies. Movies rush to fit a book that you read maybe in a course of a day or two into a movie that lasts somewhere around two hours. 

Imagine if Harry Potter had been a television show. Books that have such a depth in both storyline and world deserve more focus than 120 minutes of film. It would be great for tv and for the actors. Think of the merchandise, seasons, subscriptions, network profit. It would be a better thing all around.


----------



## Butterfree (Apr 14, 2012)

pathos said:
			
		

> The Wizard of Oz


Am I the only person who thought The Wizard of Oz (well, specifically the 1937 version, but presumably that's the one you're talking about too) was a pretty terrible adaptation of the book? There is the whole "introducing a glaring plot hole by combining the character Dorothy meets in the beginning with the character at the end who tells her she could get home all along" and the whole "IT WAS ALL JUST A DREAM" and the whole "let's cut out half of the book" and the whole "the moral of the story is now completely different" et cetera et cetera. It probably feels less so if you see it before reading the book, like 90% of people, but I loved the book as a kid and when I saw the movie I was really pretty unimpressed.


As for The Hunger Games, I haven't read the book, only Farla's supercritical Let's Read, but I have seen the movie and thought it was pretty okay (and better than my impressions of the book from the Let's Read, mostly by making Katniss seem like less of a terrible person). I did think it was pretty clear the whole star-crossed lovers thing was entirely acting on Katniss's behalf; Jennifer Lawrence did a lovely job portraying the general forcedness of it. But I did know beforehand too, so eh.

Seneca was my favorite character (his beard was my second favorite). And 



Spoiler



his "execution" was probably my favorite scene, so you guys saying it should have been cut make me sad. :( The juxtaposition of all the rich elegance and sophistication of the palace and the room and the fancy bowl with the sheer twistedness of _that_ as a method of execution was beautiful and very Snow and implies delicious psychological horror before just cutting away and letting the viewer imagine the rest. The whole movie was worth it just for that. :D



Did anybody else think 



Spoiler



the suicide threat scene for Katniss and Peeta felt pretty anticlimactic (in the movie, at least)? It was kind of just "It's okay, Katniss, you can kill me." "No, let's both kill ourselves so there will be _no_ winner!" "Okay!" Peeta seemed to just agree to it without Katniss ever expressing some kind of actual passion about how she'd rather die than give the Capitol a winner, so it didn't feel nearly as significant as it ought to be. It did make it more believable for them to be able to spin it as "we couldn't live without each other", but when Katniss goes on to be practically worshipped by the rebellion, I'd have expected them to want to make this scene come across as at least kind of awesome.


----------



## Coroxn (Apr 14, 2012)

Phantom said:


> With the success that Game of Thrones (10 total, with 3 Emmys and 1 Golden Globe) and The Walking Dead (shit ton of nominations) have had from books to television I have hopes that more good books will be put forth for tv, rather than movies. Movies rush to fit a book that you read maybe in a course of a day or two into a movie that lasts somewhere around two hours.
> 
> Imagine if Harry Potter had been a television show. Books that have such a depth in both storyline and world deserve more focus than 120 minutes of film. It would be great for tv and for the actors. Think of the merchandise, seasons, subscriptions, network profit. It would be a better thing all around.


Of course, TV shows are harder to work at then Movies-big ones like the Walking Dead and Game of Thrones probably cost much more than movies, and you have to tie up actors and entire production teams for much longer, they take a lot longer to produce, and, whereas movies are either failures or successes (and if they're adapted from books, it's probably going to be the latter) from the get-go, TV shows can dwindle over time, meaning the financial pitfalls are potentiall much greater if the show doesn't kick-off because you've engraged fans with your different-therefore-shitty-adaption.


----------



## Phantom (Apr 14, 2012)

Butterfree said:


> Seneca was my favorite character (his beard was my second favorite). And
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thing is in the books we don't learn he had died until the next book. (Can't remember if it was second or third one.)



Butterfree said:


> Did anybody else think
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was  a rather quick decision in the books if I remember right. But I agree it felt rushed in the movie. It was like "look homicidal berries, let's nom". Thing is the whole scene before that was pretty damn active, when in the books it was a lot quieter before suicide nom. (Cato slowly dying inside the cornicopia).


----------



## Butterfree (Apr 15, 2012)

Phantom said:


> Thing is in the books we don't learn he had died until the next book. (Can't remember if it was second or third one.)


Well, yeah, but I don't really see why not learning it until then is in any way important. Especially given Seneca got quite a bit of attention in the movie, so having it happen offscreen and then be revealed in the next movie would just have been odd.


----------



## Phantom (Apr 15, 2012)

True. I guess it follows with the change in perspective from Katniss to a third party.


----------



## Superbird (Apr 15, 2012)

Phantom said:


> change in perspective


Speaking of which, I'm supposed to be writing an essay about that. Do any of you have interesting ideas?


----------



## Tailsy (Apr 15, 2012)

Seneca's execution scene is definitely one of the best additions *w* and just Seneca in general. He's a lot more interesting in the film, him and his funky-ass beard. I liked how they actually used the natural third-person perspective of the film to round out the nature of the Capitol in all its weird creepiness and Snow being a big smellface. ("Everybody likes an underdog!" "I don't :|") The cuts to Caesar and Claudius discussing the Games were nice, too. Actually the fact that we get to see that kind of thing is why I prefer the film? It gives a lot more dimension to Panem than you get to see in the first book and idk it's nice to get away from Katniss STRONG FEMALE CHARACTER!!!! Everdeen every once in a while. (Although tbf she seems a lot more sympathetic in the film; agreeing with Butterfree here with Jennifer Lawrence's acting.)

And tbh what I was paying attention to in the DEATHBERRIES scene was just Peeta totally randomly stroking Katniss's braid. Dude that shit ain't been washed for like two weeks what r u doin you mad plank. Although then I just think Peeta's sort of boring and I would have probably just left him for dead like he asked because I'm a dick, so. WHO KNOWS.


----------



## Zero Moment (Apr 15, 2012)

One day, if I were ever to grow one, I would like to have a beard even half as glorious as Seneca's 0_0


----------



## Coroxn (Apr 15, 2012)

Just after watching the movie, and I was pretty impressed. I loved Seneca in the movie, and in general I like the third-person-ness. I love the TV commentator bits, as well, which were good ways of spouting exposition. I especially liked the District 11 bit, explaining just why the rules were bent to have two victors-at least temporarily. 

The final scene in the arena was very anticlimactic. I was actually really looking forward to that scene, and it was severely disappointing.

All in all, I liked a lot of the movie (Tracker-Jackers and the Fire for the win) and the bits I didn't like were mainly due to things not crossing over in the adaption. My cousin, who never read the books, cried twice when she thought Peta was going to die, and at the "Winning won't help much, because she came with me"  scene had her reduced to a blubbering mass.

She loved it.


----------



## Noctowl (Apr 15, 2012)

I liked this film. It was pretty cool. I might read the books sometime...when I get the chance.

I swear Katniss was saying 'okay' far too much though. It was like her catchphrase.

Also, I found a lot of it quite predictable. I won't go into it because I dunno what spoiler tags are but I knew sorta what was going to happen around the start.


----------

